Statewide wild steelhead release in Washington was defeated today by a vote of 5-4. Next year's regulations will be one per day, no more then 5 per year.

Details to come later...

Hawkeye

02-09-2002, 04:43 PM

Will they go through this process again next year or does this set the regs for a longer period of time?

pmflyfisher

02-09-2002, 04:45 PM

To bad, thats a shame so close.

Politics !!

Will need a couple of drinks tonight

:mad: :mad:

Dble Haul

02-09-2002, 10:01 PM

Ryan- So sorry to hear that, but know that we won't give up on this. Let us know when to petition again, and we'll all be there for you.

Thanks to you and all of the others who have taken this burden upon themselves. Things like this have a way of working out in the long run. ;)

juro

02-09-2002, 11:24 PM

To Sinktip and all of the honorable anglers of the pacific northwest: very sorry to hear that the decision went against wild steelhead release. Despite the loss there was a great deal accomplished in terms of establishing "mindshare" in officials' minds and the public's thinking as well, you guys deserve a huge thank you from the sportsmen of the world. I consider myself very much a pacific northwesterner in my heart although I don't get to live there anymore. Over the dozen years I lived there the concept of wild steelhead has become one of the most important concepts in my life, and what has been done by WSC and all stewards of the resource deserves our utmost appreciation and our commitment to drive on with you no matter what obstacles may arise.

All that being said, perhaps a big part of the problem is that the fate of wild steelhead hinges on 9 votes. How do these 9 get empowered with these votes? What influence do we have on these 9 appointments to office?

I guess what I am saying is that we tried pushing the voice of the people through the existing protocol. Can we change or affect the protocol itself via democracy?

There must be additional tactics to pursue...

fredaevans

02-10-2002, 07:35 AM

have gone into effect if it was the other-way round? To re-phrase the question how many of the game people would have to vote "yes" to get the wild fish in to C and R only?
Fred

PS: If memory serves, it sounds like they addopted the same/similar regulations as are presently in effect in Oregon. This year there is a bit of tweek in the number of fish you can 'keep' due to high numbers of returning hatchery fish. It's three hatchery fish or 1 native and two hatch-brats per day. However, if you keep a native the total annual count for natives does not change.

In the 'egg on your face dept' a local I fish with was telling me the Rogue was to be C and R only for native fish one season. Keep the hatchery fish. In a rather large public meeting the hatchery rep was asked how many fish they'd 'clipped' for return that season.

Dead silence; The answer was none. The next question to the game dept/hatchery folks was pretty obvious. No native C and R that year.

NrthFrk16

02-10-2002, 01:18 PM

This rule change process takes place every year but major changes only take place once every other year. I can not imagine taking this issue on again within the year as it is physically and mentally exhausting plus I really question if anything would change within the next year as it will be the same Commisioners for that vote as we had for this vote.

It is my opinion that we did everything that we could to present to them the proper science to make the decisions, we also showed up in such a great majority, I do not know how we could end up with a higher majority. There were certain commisioners who were not going to listen to us, no matter how large of a majority we had and no matter how good the science was that we presented.

Fred, the ammendants and rules are passed based upon a simple majority. We lost by one vote. It was very very close and it was probally the most nerve wracking half hour of my life. The ammendment was proposed by Gytenbeek who has been in favor of this regulation for 30 years and if it wasnt for him the vote would not have been as close as it was. The ammendment was seconded by Bob Tuck so we had 2 votes. Gytenbeek started off with an excellent and very emotional speach that had me very choked up. Tuck followed with some excellent points.

When it got around to Pelly, who we needed and were not sure on which way she would vote, we were down 3-2. Pelly made a good speach with some good points and now we had her in our camp (she was still undecided until the night before). Next was Reynolds and she was in favor of statewide WSR as well. We were now up 4-3 and we needed two votes.

What would Ozment do?? He was against it! :(

It all came down to Cahill who was the Chair of the Commision. We gave no opinions, he just said "Ammendment to the Proposal fails."

I believe this is how the sequence went but I may have placed a couple of the Commision members out of place...maybe Duggan can correct me.

Anyways...it was oh so close!!!

DFix

02-11-2002, 08:11 AM

My guess is your Commission is comprised of appointed members. That, in and of itself, is the political hurdle which we all struggle against, here and there. It's too bad the Commission Chair wouldn't commit yea or nay; perhaps it's time to review the appointment policies, lobby the Legislature to change the regs, as well as express extreme displeasure with the Commission's decision and a concern to the Executive Branch (which most likely made the appointment anyway) about it's political motives behind members' appointments. I'm sure you've all seen the recent thread regarding RI and it's intent to institute SW licensing; the commentary about MA trying to funnel license fees into the General Fund, etc. - it's not localized; we all experience some form of it.

Is it fair to ask what Sportsmen's groups have what lobbying clout in the State House (e.g., CCA)??? is it appropriate to do any post-decision letter writing as mentioned to pressure legislators to review...ad nauseum.